A hot Internet company poised for an even hotter IPO is attacked in court by a competitor whose lunch it has been eating.

Sound familiar? Actually, it’s just as much Google in 2004 as Facebook yesterday.

What the pair have in common is Yahoo, for whom this kind of patent infringement lawsuit is a whole lot of been there, done that.

In Google’s case, Yahoo was suing the then-smaller company over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting 2.7 million more shares of that stock, which it then sold off relatively quickly.

As part of the settlement from a lawsuit started in 2002, Google licensed U.S. Patent No. 6,269,361, entitled “System and method for influencing a position on a search result list generated by a computer network search engine,” which was owned by Yahoo Overture subsidiary.

In plain terms, the patent was over its key pay-for-performance service, which was at the heart of Google’s business of allowing bidding for search results placement related to relevant keywords.

In Facebook’s lawsuit, Yahoo is alleging intellectual property violations by the social networking giant, and is also taking credit for Facebook’s success.

The 19-page lawsuit over 10 patents — related to advertising, privacy, customization, messaging and social networking — comes as Yahoo is seeking to right itself under new CEO Scott Thompson.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” Yahoo’s lawsuit reads, in part.

(Cue the movie script: If Yahoo had invented Facebook, it would have invented Facebook.)

That includes, Yahoo alleges, Facebook’s popular News Feed, advertising methods, privacy settings and more. The company adds that Facebook has been “free riding” on Yahoo’s intellectual property, and that royalty payments alone will not suffice.

What happens next today will be interesting — way back when, Google finally gave in in the delicate game of chicken with Yahoo, at the last minute.

But it’s not clear whether Facebook will flinch — or not.

Until we find out, here’s the press release from the 2004 settlement between Yahoo and Google to peruse:

Yahoo! and Google Resolve Disputes

SUNNYVALE, CA & MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA — August 9, 2004 – Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO) and Google Inc. today announced that the companies have resolved two disputes that have been pending between the companies.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Google will take a license to U.S. Patent No. 6,269,361 and several related patents, held by Yahoo!’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Overture, and Yahoo! dismissed its patent lawsuit against Google. The two parties have also resolved a dispute regarding shares issuable to Yahoo! pursuant to a warrant to purchase Google shares in connection with a 2000 services agreement.

In connection with the settlement of the warrant dispute, the patent lawsuit, and in payment for the license, Google issued shares of its Class A common stock to Yahoo!.

On the sixth page of its just-filed patent lawsuit against Facebook, Yahoo quotes the social networking company’s CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg:

“Getting there first is not what it’s all about.”

The quote, which Yahoo contends shows Zuckerberg has “conceded that the design of Facebook is not novel and based on the ideas of others,” is woefully taken out of context, but it’s an attempt to hit home one point:

We were here first and we have more patents.

Even if, as it has turned out, Yahoo has done little over the years with the innovation those patents might represent. Meanwhile, Facebook has run the bases with the wide range of the advertising, messaging, customization, privacy and social networking concepts involved.

Of the 10 patents Yahoo is using in the 19-page lawsuit, filed today in California, the company said: “For much of the technology upon which Facebook was based, Yahoo was there first.”

First but worst, as Yahoo has struggled in recent years to make itself more relevant and prevent the decline of its once mighty business.

Via a series of ineffective leaders and strategies, that has not worked at all, as its business has declined. Now — under the much more in-your-face reign of new CEO Scott Thompson — Yahoo is hoping that courts will determine that what it says it invented counts for something.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” Yahoo’s lawsuit reads, in part.

That includes in the legal action, Yahoo alleges, Facebook’s popular News Feed, advertising methods, privacy settings and more. The company adds that Facebook has been “free riding” on Yahoo’s intellectual property and that royalty payments alone will not suffice.

So what does Yahoo want for this alleged free ride? Triple damages and to enjoin Facebook from operating by using said patents.

Given the scope of the patents Yahoo said it has, that means it wants Facebook to essentially close down.

Therefore, I would be expecting Facebook to poke back in three … two … one …

In what is either the boldest gamble of its history or the most boneheaded, Yahoo has filed a massive patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook.

The attack by the Silicon Valley Internet icon against perhaps the most powerful consumer social networking site today — also based in tech’s heartland and also an important partner of Yahoo — is sure to be a controversial one, pitting Yahoo against a company that has surpassed it handily in recent years in regards to popularity among consumers.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” Yahoo’s lawsuit reads, in part.

That includes, Yahoo alleges, Facebook’s popular News Feed, advertising methods, privacy settings and more. The company adds that Facebook has been “free riding” on Yahoo’s intellectual property and that royalty payments alone will not suffice.

So what does Yahoo want for this alleged free ride? Triple damages and to enjoin Facebook from operating by using said patents.

The 19-page lawsuit over 10 patents — related to advertising, privacy, customization, messaging and social networking — comes as Yahoo is seeking to right itself under new CEO Scott Thompson.

Multiple sources said he is primarily driving this new aggressiveness from Yahoo.

Since Yahoo told the New York Times that it was considering such a move last week, the issue has been widely debated within the company, with many top techies there opposed to it, due to the company’s longstanding ethos of using patents for defense rather than offense.

Thus, the decision to move was closely held, sources said, with only Thompson and legal chief Michael Callahan largely working on it.

Still, patent lawsuits have become ever more prevalent among tech companies, as they seek to battle for advantage in a rapidly changing competitive landscape. Apple, Google, Microsoft and others are involved in several legal actions, although they are largely related to mobile technology.

Yahoo’s lawsuit is the most prominent in the social networking arena, a sector that has seen a huge explosion of late. Its timing could not be worse for Facebook, since it is in a quiet period for its upcoming IPO, which is expected to value the company at close to $100 billion.

Yahoo has done this kind of thing before, of course, having wrangled with Google until right before it went public in 2004 over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting several million more shares of that stock.

Yahoo is shaking Facebook down for much more here and with much higher stakes for both companies. If successful, Yahoo could seriously damage Facebook’s initial public offering; if not, Yahoo will cement its growing reputation as a company with nothing to lose, whose value is built not on its current business, but on non-operating assets.

More importantly, at least initially, the move did nothing to boost Yahoo’s moribund shares — the stock was down about one percent to $14.49 in after-hours trading.

More to come, but here is the entire document below. The lawsuit has been filed in San Jose, Calif., federal court.

Lastly, the official PR back-and-forth:

Said Yahoo, in its statement:

“Yahoo! has invested substantial resources in research and development through the years, which has resulted in numerous patented inventions of technology that other companies have licensed. These technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. Unfortunately, the matter with Facebook remains unresolved and we are compelled to seek redress in federal court. We are confident that we will prevail.”

Facebook, obviously, disagrees, and also threw in a jab about the lack of discussions over the issue between the pair:

“We’re disappointed that Yahoo, a longtime business partner of Facebook and a company that has substantially benefited from its association with Facebook, has decided to resort to litigation. Once again, we learned of Yahoo’s decision simultaneously with the media. We will defend ourselves vigorously against these puzzling actions.”

I’ll admit to also being puzzled about the strategery here, but I am sure there will be much more to come.

Until then, read on:

Complaint

And here is what I wrote last week on the subject:

Apparently, Yahoo’s new motto: If you can’t beat ‘em — and it can’t — sue ‘em.

That would be Yahoo — the perpetual 98-pound weakling of the Internet these days — threatening powerful Facebook, which had cleanly bested it by attracting hordes of users with a plethora of popular products and services.

Yahoo has already lost its audience to Facebook, which was most recently followed by its frittering away a commanding lead in display advertising, too.

That would also be the Yahoo whose most recent success in improving its increasingly tenuous connections with customers was, in fact, by deeply integrating Facebook’s social hooks into its Web properties.

That would be the Yahoo which has failed time and again to innovate its own offerings so drastically over the years that it has now apparently decided that its first and best strategic move under Thompson’s rule is a shakedown.

Such a cynical move on rights Yahoo has long held seems more a play for the cheap seats of Wall Street, given that the company needs to look like it is doing everything it can to turn things around right now as it faces a proxy challenge.

First, it ended difficult talks with its Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, over selling back lucrative stakes there.

Now, according to sources, Yahoo’s Thompson has actually been trying to make very nice with activist shareholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point — on-the-down-low chitchats that might have played a part of this latest unusual move.

At least Kodak had a good excuse. The once iconic camera company had recently been trying to take advantage of its trove of patents as a way to stave off declaring bankruptcy.

That didn’t work for Kodak, and it will also not work for Yahoo, whose only real option is to try to innovate its way out of the mess it has landed itself in.

You know, with good ideas.

Instead, the company’s leadership has opted for a road that could rain down trouble and paint Yahoo as a company bereft of talent to win any other way.

And while a range of intellectual property lawsuits have broken out all over the digital sector, involving Apple, Microsoft, Google and many others, such a strategy for Yahoo could be dangerous if it fails in its legal effort to take advantage of its 1,000-plus patents, including those related to search and advertising.

Others — including such tech luminaries as LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, who co-owns the seminal Six Degrees patent for constructing a networking database and system — hold a number of critical social networking patents, too, so who knows where this thing will go.

Nonetheless, Yahoo has decided to emulate those companies with one of the few valuable assets it might have, waging its little war, right as Facebook is in the midst of its initial public offering period.

Yahoo has done this before, of course, having wrangled with Google until right before it went public in 2004 over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting several million more shares of that stock (which it then, of course, sold too soon).

That certainly could happen here, with Yahoo managing to grab a chunk of Facebook’s pre-IPO stock.
That would mean that Yahoo’s most valuable asset would be those shares, as well as its stake in Asian companies it bought a while back for a bargain and now makes up a bulk of the company’s valuation.

As to Yahoo’s core business — investors consider it almost entirely worthless.

And let’s not forget: Facebook could also sue right back, which it very well might do. Or, perhaps, cut off agreeable ties that have aided Yahoo in recent years.

In other words, in poking Facebook, Yahoo might now learn what it is really like to be de-friended.

“Currently, we have no plans to introduce Google’s latest Android handset,’’ KT spokesman Lee In-won told the Korea Times. Evidently, SK Telecom–the country’s largest carrier–holds a similar view, and the reason seems to be the tight control Google is exerting over the device’s local marketing and customization. SK officials, for example, say they’re having difficulty getting SK’s T-Map navigation service onto the Nexus S.

With the S, Google has taken a dim view of the overlays and carrier add-ons that often mar the Android experience, adding little benefit while undermining its usability. Presumably, the difficulties to which SK refers are the result of this. If the Nexus S is to be pure Android, Google can’t allow its carrier partners to compromise by piling crapware and inferior pay services atop it, can it?

As of this writing, Google has not responded to requests for comment.

Although Andy Rubin’s keynote at D: Dive into Mobile is scheduled for just before dinner, expect to hear a lot of talk about dessert. On the menu are Froyo, Gingerbread and perhaps even a hint of Honeycomb.

Google did release a couple of tasty treats already on Monday–announcing plans for the Samsung co-developed Nexus S as well as the release of Android 2.3 (Gingerbread). But I hear the cookie jar isn’t quite empty yet.

In between sugary snacks, Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg will pepper Rubin on the many issues facing Android and the wireless industry. Mobilized will have live coverage of the session at this spot beginning around 6:45 pm PT.

Liveblog

6:37 pm: The crowd is still settling into their seats here at the Ritz-Carlton San Francisco, the swanky home to the inaugural D: Dive Into Mobile.

6:40 pm: Lights dim. Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg take the stage. “My husband, Walt Mossberg, and I would like to welcome you to this intimate dinner,” Swisher quips.

6:42 pm: Ironically, the crowd was asked to silence their mobile devices, but Kara says they should just feel free to leave them on.

6:44 pm: It’s Rubin time (and he has brought a satchel of goodies with him).

Rubin is asked about the Nexus One and why it didn’t shake up the business model. “We bit off a little more than we can chew.” Rubin says that they were hoping for a model more like that in Europe, where people can pick a phone and then separately pick service, typically at retail stores like Carphone Warehouse. “We were trying to do that model in the U.S. and only do it online.”

6:46 pm: Kara: So have you given up on that business model?

Rubin: With Nexus S, which is the thing we announced today, we still have that notion of an unlocked phone. But we are not selling it ourselves, but through traditional channels, in this case Best Buy.

6:48 pm: Walt: How is Android doing?

Rubin: Android started as an eight-person start-up. “During that time at Google we obviously staffed up.” Now there are 172 different phone models using Android after the OS was launched two years ago with one, the T-Mobile G1.

Rubin credits the quality of the software and the open nature of it.

6:49 pm: Walt: I notice more and more they are taking on the personality of the carrier, not Google, not the handset maker. There are lots of what I would call craplets. Verizon, for example, swapped out Google for Bing. Is there a danger it is being taken over?

Rubin: That’s the nature of open. That’s actually a feature of Android.

He takes a swipe at Windows Mobile, saying that the alternative is a commoditized world where all the phones have to have a start menu in one place and all the icons have to be tiles.

6:54 pm: Kara: Do you consider yourself the Microsoft of phones in that regard?

Rubin: No. We’re probably more like the Linux of phones, and that’s a true statement.

Walt: You mean hard to get drivers for, only for geeks, no real consumer would buy it?

Rubin: No, I think we’ve already proven that wrong. Bad analogy.

6:55 pm: Discussion about all the crapware that comes on many phones.

Rubin: The consumers are voting and the consumers are voicing their opinions.

6:56 pm: Rubin has some relatively nice things to say about the iPhone.

“I think everybody is embracing the iPhone. They are pretty open.”

Rubin says that most developers actually are having a pretty easy time getting their apps approved by Apple.

6:57 pm: Kara: How do you consider Apple as a competitor?

Certainly they make great products, Rubin says–robust, solid, good user experiences. A lot of consistency across applications. More recently I see them getting involved in the other end of the spectrum–services like a bookstore, the app store.

6:59 pm: Walt: What about Apple’s massive data center? That’s another area of competition for you guys.

Rubin talks about the power of Google’s ad-based model, which allows the core advertising to fund all kinds of applications.

Walt: Do you think Apple has the DNA to do this?

Rubin: “My assumption is Apple is a company that learns from its mistakes.”

7:01 pm: Kara and Walt: Are you profitable? Is Android profitable? Does Android make any money?

Rubin: We’re making money on the advertising that’s generated through Android.

Walt: Are you profitable if it was broken out as a separate business?

Rubin: Yes. [Wow. I'm curious about the math, but maybe if you add all the searches on Android-based devices.]

There’s no way I would have ever been profitable as a start-up. I probably wouldn’t have made it as a separate company.

7:06 pm: Walt: How do you see the rest of the competition beyond Apple?

Rubin: I don’t think it’s ever going to be just two [Apple and Android]. There’s a lot of innovation and a lot of ideas out there.

Rubin says there is a fundamental advantage to Android and iPhone since they are new and designed from the ground up.

He notes even Windows Phone 7 has legacy code from the original Windows Mobile from way back when.

“You just have this package of stuff that was invented before the Internet,” Rubin says. “When the architects built that product, they didn’t have the Internet in mind.”

7:08 pm: Walt: Is there anything you do like about Windows Phone 7?

Rubin: It was a big bet. They struck upon that notion of the centerpiece of the main tiles. It’s a good 1.0 product. It does look different and it does look unique. It’s solid. I’m not the predictor of being successful.

He says if he were to give advice to Microsoft, he would suggest that it give more freedom to carriers and phone makers so the devices don’t look the same.

Kara: Have you gone to Finland to woo Nokia?

Rubin: I haven’t been to Finland.

Walt: Forget Finland, have you tried to convince Nokia?

Rubin just laughs (a-ha).

7:12 pm: Kara: The discussions with Nokia–talk about them in detail.

Rubin: The company has new leadership [referring to CEO Stephen Elop]. They are evaluating lots of alternatives. I’m open-minded and a big proponent of Android.

Rubin again declines to talk about any meetings he may have had.

7:14 pm: What about the challenge of iconic products like RIM?

Rubin: Talks about the challenge of legacy and points out Motorola had that problem when it became overly dependent on the Razr. Then, “they bet the company on Android,” he points out.

Rubin said RIM is doing the right things–acquiring assets like QNX and DataViz to build a more modern operating system.

7:16 pm: Walt points out that RIM will be here Tuesday–PlayBook tablet in hand.

7:16 pm: Back to the discussion about persuading companies to use Android.

Rubin: If it’s good–and we all believe that it’s good–everybody can use it.

“You don’t need to be a partner of Google to run Android.”

7:17 pm: Walt asks about tablets. Are they exciting to you? Are they important to you? Can they replace laptops for some people?

Rubin: I think what is going on in tablets is interesting. It’s fundamentally changing the model of computing interaction.

It is much more physical. You touch it. You feel it.

7:19 pm: What changes in the paradigm? It’s not a laptop. It’s not a phone.

Rubin points out that we used to have PDAs, but the cellphone eventually replaced it. The tablet is a sort of in-between device so the use case is less clear. You might definitely have it on the couch, but maybe not on the subway.

7:21 pm: Walt: What makes it more interesting and more immersive? There is something different there?

Rubin: If you do a good job, what you’ve done is make it a reflex. Like a car. You learn how to drive and you can drive almost any car. You don’t get distracted by things. That’s the result of many, many years of evolution. That’s true of any consumer product. They become almost like second nature for you.

7:24 pm: Kara and Walt ask about privacy.

Rubin: There is nothing in open source Android OS that sends keystrokes or what applications you use to Google.

He encourages people to look at the source code.

Walt: There are Google services that do collect certain things?

Rubin: Yes, like on other platforms. But he encourages people to read the company’s privacy policy.

7:27 pm: How do you overcome the perception that Google wants to collect more information than the others?

I think you just have to be transparent. You have open source–be inspectable. Any other interpretation is either FUD or just people who don’t understand.

7:28 pm: On to the goodie bag. Rubin pulls out a Nexus S. Says it is his personal device.

Kara: Oh good. She grabs it and pulls it close to her.

Now Rubin is showing the features, screen, etc. He’s talking about the Near Field Communications technology that is actually printed inside the back of the case. NFC allows a phone to scan specially printed tags.

Walt: Is that what sends all the information back to Google?

Rubin: Laughs. Goes back to demoing NFC and showing the Nexus S scanning a tag, which sends a URL for a video of the Nexus S to the phone, which then starts playing.

7:31 pm: Rubin talks about the applications: Buying coffee, getting coupons.

What we are hoping is third-party developers create a lot of cool apps. Devices can also use NFC to exchange contact info between two devices as well, kind of like beaming in the old Palm days.

7:32 pm: Rubin is talking abut the Nexus strategy.

To give a “Pure Google” phone. Google works with the hardware maker to take maximum advantage of Android’s features.

7:35 pm: What’s new with Gingerbread?

We added a garbage collector. Added broader voice over Internet Protocol support. Can cut, copy and paste without a trackball.

7:36 pm: Walt: What about video calling? I know there are third-party apps that do that. It seems like a natural thing that it belongs in the phone function.

Kara: FaceGoog or GoogleTime.

Rubin: There’s a whole bunch of software engineers hitting their keyboards back in Mountain View. If consumers want it, we’ll add it. [He strongly hints that it is coming, points out there already is Google video chat for PC.]

7:38 pm: Rubin reaches into his bag of tricks again. Pulls out a prototype Motorola tablet to show a forthcoming version of Google’s mobile map application.

7:38 pm: Shows the improved 3-D abilities and new panning and zooming options. What we are showing off here is some pretty cool performance.

“It will be available for cellphones in a matter of days,” Rubin says.

What allows the new presentation is that maps are no longer a series of tiles, but rather vector graphics.

7:40 pm: Vector data is smaller and more efficient, so users can load data in case they go offline. “You could load a whole state,” Rubin says.

This app runs on Android only for now, though it will work on tablets and phones.

Walt: What about PCs?

Rubin: That would be a natural extension.

7:41 pm: What version of Android is running on that tablet?

Rubin: Honeycomb [the next version of Android, due out some time next year]. There are no buttons on the Motorola tablet. He’s showing his personal email again.

7:43 pm: More on Honeycomb: We added new APIs to Honeycomb that allow an application to split its views to multiple views. On a a tablet they can be side by side, while on a phone they might be one after the other.

7:46 pm: On to Q&A.

7:46 pm: What about the Chrome OS team? What’s the delineation between the two?

Rubin: That’s a good question. Google was born on the Web. “I don’t think it would be doing its job unless it reinvested in the Web.”

But evolution of the Web had stagnated a bit, prompting Chrome. “It’s kind of slowed down a bit.”

Apps vs. Web?

There’s no need to argue. We’re doing both, Rubin says.

7:50 pm: What are the plans for the Android team to focus on the enterprise?

We did a little bit, Rubin says, but he likens it to baby steps. Support for VPN and some secure browsing. Gingerbread has some added features like remote wipe. Each release you will see more and more.

7:51 pm: App discovery. What are your plans?

Rubin: This is all evolving. The Android market is evolving as well. Gingerbread allows “related applications.” We are always adding features.

As a search company, if we can’t help you discover apps, I think we have a problem. We should be very easily able to organize a few hundred-thousand apps.

7:53 pm: Question about mobile payments; What is Andy Rubin’s vision? Groupon?

Rubin: I think there is a lot of opportunity. It is not an opportunity that is going to be seized by one company. Today Android does carrier billing integration, so you can put apps on your carrier bill. Creates an efficient micropayment option.

With Nexus S having added gyroscope capability, can see things from even within a store. Should help make, for example, better coupon apps.

7:57 pm: Android on TVs?

Rubin: That’s exactly what Google TV is. It is Android running on a set-top box. The first versions of that are running an Intel processor.

Have demonstrated the same app can run on both a three-inch screen or a flat-panel TV.

People are building all kinds of things. Refrigerators, ovens, automotive. Rubin says the nice thing about open source is that he and Google don’t have to be involved in every use. “We knew what to do to make it scale as widely as possible.”

7:58 pm: Question about carrier data plans and pricing.

Rubin: Average usage on an Android phone is 440MB a month. Rubin points out we are at a bandwidth crunch, but that it tends to be a cycle. New networks tend not to be overwhelmed by demand at first, but then the demands grow. Then new networks come along.

How should OEMs try to differentiate?

Rubin: I think HTC has done a really good job with Sense. Motorola has Blur. People are really differentiated.

Rubin says he often hears complaints about fragmentation. “Fragmentation” is the wrong word. Different phones do things differently, but that’s differentiation. Basically the apps are still compatible, Rubin says.

8:04 pm: Is Android too clunky? Will we see a sea change where Android really gets more user friendly?

Rubin: I would probably characterize Android today as an enthusiast product for early adopters–or wives of tech enthusiasts.

8:05 pm: Rubin says the company made some concessions that led to “geeking it out.” But then there are apps that offer easier customization and personalization.

8:07 pm: Walt points out places where it requires an extra step to do things like compose an email, while the iPhone does it in a single step.

Rubin: Yep. We get it. You will see the fruits of that investment in the tablets first and then in the phones. It’s going to get better. Honeycomb will be a good start

8:08 pm: Applause and they exit stage. ‘Night.

This week I tested Flipboard, an iPad app that is a personalized digital magazine made up of content that relates to you and your life. A Flipboard is created when the app automatically gathers social-networking updates from your Facebook and Twitter accounts and displays them on attractively formatted individual pages.

If you’re not a social-networking expert, you can select content for your Flipboard from a list of 20 to 30 categories, including photography, health, technology, film, music, food and others. Behind the scenes, these categories are populated by Twitter lists (groups of tweets about the same subject) selected by the Flipboard team. You can also search for specific lists on Twitter, including lists you’ve added to your Twitter account, and create a section based on that search. For now, the Contents section of a Flipboard holds nine sections, but this will grow in future iterations of the app.

I’ve been using Flipboard for the past couple months, and I’ve grown accustomed to relying on it as a favorite method for checking friends’ updates and news updates. On Wednesday, you, too, can download this free iPad app from Apple’s App Store. For now, Flipboard doesn’t contain ads.

One downside to Flipboard is that it doesn’t cache content for you to read when you’re offline. Other iPad apps, like The Wall Street Journal, do this, and have saved me on countless occasions when my iPad is not in a Wi-Fi zone and isn’t loaded with new material to read. (People who own iPads with always-on 3G network connections won’t have this problem as often.) A Flipboard engineer says that the company is investigating some degree of an offline mode for the app in the future.

Another Flipboard frustration is that the app doesn’t allow enough personal customization of content. It mostly presents status updates chronologically. A new version of Flipboard, due out this fall, will include more personalized content.

One of the more outstanding things about Flipboard is its ability to take plain-text tweets or Facebook updates and turn them into visuals of a shared photo or Web link in a status message. This means that instead of reading a friend’s update that says, “Wildlife news here wwf.panda.org,” Flipboard will already have retrieved a small sample of that website, including images and text, to display on a page of my digital magazine.

Flipboard’s visual effects were so appealing that I found myself wanting to see how the app displayed my social-networking content, even if I had recently checked Facebook or seen the latest updates from Twitter.

Users can flip through pages with right-to-left swipes, which give the illusion that the current page creases in its center as one side of the page flips up and over. If you flip slowly, you can read both sides of a page at once, which looks incredibly cool.

IPad app Flipboard gathers social-network updates into a magazine

By touching on one status update, you can open a pop-up screen that shows comments made by other friends on Facebook; on Twitter, this menu shows who has retweeted a post. Here, too, you can hit a button to “like” a Facebook update, favorite it on Twitter, retweet a tweet or email an item to others. If one of your friends is too “noisy,” you can click a button to hide that person’s updates from your Flipboard.

A strip of dots at the bottom of each Flipboard page provides a place where you can drag a finger and skip ahead in the Facebook or Twitter feed timeline. Since I regularly check Facebook on my computer and BlackBerry, I found a lot of content on Flipboard that I had already viewed. Flipboard’s co-founder and CEO Mike McCue said the company is considering ways of marking certain content as already read. On Twitter, I follow over a hundred people, so Flipboard’s content was always fresh.

Photos shared on Facebook and Twitter are illustrated on Flipboard in magnified images, and a rotating selection of certain images is chosen for the cover of your Flipboard magazine. More than once, I was startled to see a friend’s new baby or family shot on the front page of the app when I opened it.

Flipboard does an excellent job of taking otherwise plain content and arranging it in a digestible and attractive format. It could stand to make its content more customizable and tweaked to individual preferences, but company representatives say they’re working on these improvements. If you enjoy reading news from the Web and/or keeping up with your social network, this app is a beautiful, visual way to do so.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com.

---

Related Post and Video

• Meet Flipboard: Mike McCue Talks About Stealth “Social Magazine” Start-Up That Just Nabbed $10.5 Million in Funding.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100720/flipboard-your-own-digital-magazine/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100514/chuck-geschke-on-adobe-flash-apple/ http://allthingsd.com/20100514/chuck-geschke-on-adobe-flash-apple/#comments Fri, 14 May 2010 10:00:55 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=40589 A couple of weeks ago, Apple CEO Steve Jobs published “Thoughts on Flash,” a 1,671-word execration of Adobe’s Flash platform.

On Thursday, Adobe co-founders and co-chairmen Chuck Geschke and John Warnock followed suit with some thoughts of their own. Their eight-paragraph essay, “Our Thoughts On Open Markets,” mentions Apple only once, but when it does, it is to lambaste the company for its position on Flash, a position the two claim “could undermine this next chapter of the web–the chapter in which mobile devices outnumber computers, any individual can be a publisher, and content is accessed anywhere and at any time.”

I spoke to Geschke Thursday afternoon about the pair’s letter, Adobe’s (ADBE) new “We ? Apple” ad campaign and Apple’s (AAPL) stance on his company’s software. Below, a transcript of our conversation.

John Paczkowski: What is Adobe is hoping to get out of this new “We Love Apple/Freedom of Choice” campaign?

Chuck Geschke: We mostly are using it as a way to communicate with our customers and partners to assure them that we’re not going to change our strategy and to inform the rest of the community of what the pluses and minuses are of not supporting Flash on the iPhone and the iPad. Our customers, a large percentage of them, are the people who generate and distribute information and content, and for them they have one production stream that they use to do that and they’ve gotten used to the fact that we’ve worked very hard to open up the standards that we support so that we can offer them ubiquity of output on all kinds of platforms. So the fact that Apple is precluding that puts them in a tough position because it means that they’re going to have to create that content twice, and that’s not very productive. It’s certainly more expensive than what they do today. And as you know, the content industry is an industry under a lot of cost pressure these days.

JP: Both Apple and Microsoft have said publicly now that Flash has issues with reliability, security, and performance. Do you think those complaints are legitimate?

CG: I think they’re old news. Go to our Web site and read the actual facts about Flash. We enumerate the facts about Flash there as we see them. [Microsoft and Apple] may have a different set of facts that they believe are accurate. It’s up to you to decide. But I will tell you that the Flash version we’re coming out with now–where, for the first time with the Mac platform, we can actually get to the lower-level interfaces–is going to run like the wind. And the same is true on Windows.

JP: Shouldn’t Apple have the right to define the means by which apps for its own platform can be written?

CG: They absolutely have the right. No one says they don’t.

JP: Cross-platform mobile apps tend not to take advantage of native features unique to each device. What do you have to say about complaints that write-once-run-anywhere software results in subpar apps?

CG: Well, people don’t say that about Photoshop. They certainly don’t say it about Acrobat….I’m a little confused about what the real examples of that are. If there’s a problem with the performance of Flash as demonstrated on the iPhone, it’s because we haven’t been able to access the inner layers of hardware and software we need to to provide the kind of performance we can provide on other platforms. But that’s Apple’s choice, not ours. And now, of course, you can’t use it at all.

JP: So you don’t think write-once-run-anywhere is limiting at all?

CG: Not really. I mean there may be certain features in certain environments that you’ll want to do customization for, but the more you go down that road, the more you get the experience of HTML on the Web, where the kind of browser, hardware and OS you use determines what your experience. That’s because HTML is not well codified and standardized and people sort of roll their own.

JP: How much of Adobe’s revenue comes from Flash?

CG: I would share that number if we disclose it, but I’m not sure that we do. It isn’t a huge amount of revenue, but it is an extremely popular platform that all of our apps have the opportunity to exploit when it’s distributed everywhere. Flash tools aren’t the largest piece of our business, but it’s a significant one and obviously we feel it’s extremely important to our customers and partners who want to build third-party apps in an environment where they can, in fact, put them on a variety of devices without having to re-implement them.

JP: So could Apple’s exclusion of Flash hurt Adobe sales?

CG: I don’t think it will have a significant effect. As well as Apple is doing, if you look at the number of platforms out in the market and the number of release of new ones that will occur over the next six to 12 months, it’s going to be huge. That’s a much bigger population, and we’re just focusing on making our technology operate as effectively and efficiently as possible for it.

JP: In his “Thoughts on Flash” essay, Jobs accused Adobe of abandoning Apple. “Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products,” he wrote. Is Job’s implication here a fair one?

CG: We never abandoned Apple. Apple now seems to be abandoning at least one aspect of our product line right now. No, we never abandoned them. We’ve always ported our apps simultaneously to both platforms. There have been times when Apple has changed its strategy on hardware or on operating systems that didn’t meet our product cycle, so there have been periods of maybe six months where we didn’t keep up with their latest release. But that’s our own business model; we can only afford to re-implement our products at a certain rate.

We have never, ever abandoned Apple and we don’t want to abandon them today. Everything you read in our new ad is true. I myself own probably between 8 and 10 Macintoshes — both laptops and work stations. I don’t buy PCs, I buy Macs.

JP: Why isn’t Flash an open standard?

CG: It is. What are you talking about?

JP: Flash is proprietary to Adobe. It’s not Open Source. Let me rephrase: Why isn’t Flash an open standard overseen by an open-standards body?

CG: As soon as Adobe acquired Macromedia, we openly published the SWF format and removed the requirement that you have a license to use it….No, we haven’t put Flash out to a standards body yet as we have with PDF and Postscript. But I wouldn’t be shocked if we do someday when it makes sense.

With the standards that we have built and made open to the entire world, we’ve tried our best to get them to the point where they’re mature enough so that we’re not doing design by committee. If you look at the amount of time it will take HTML5 to become a reasonably solid platform, it’s going to take a long time because there are an awful lot of vested interests trying to influence its development.

JP: Any thoughts on Steve Jobs’s claim that “Flash was created during the PC era–for PCs and mice”?

CG: What do you think an iPhone is? It’s a personal computer.

JP: One last question. What do you think of the iPad?

CG: I think it’s a neat thing. I personally have no particular interest in it; I’d much rather have a general-purpose computer. I think there’s definitely a market for that kind of product. We certainly know a lot of people that want to produce content for it and a large percentage of them are disappointed that they’re going to have to do that separately from the way they produce content for all the other devices they support.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Adobe to Apple: You Wanna Hug It Out? Let’s Hug It Out!
• Good Luck With That Alleged Antitrust Complaint Against Apple, Adobe…
• Adobe CTO: Flash on iPhone Doesn’t Suck and Apple Knows It
• A Possible Apple Antitrust Inquiry? Nothing to See Here…
• Microsoft on Flash: What Steve Said
• Adobe: We’re Done With You Too, Apple
• Apple to Adobe: I Know You Are, but What Am I?
• So Much for Flash on the iPhone
• Adobe: Flash for Mac Is Getting Better–Really!

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100514/chuck-geschke-on-adobe-flash-apple/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090922/live-from-new-york-yahoo-introduces-you/ http://allthingsd.com/20090922/live-from-new-york-yahoo-introduces-you/#comments Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:19:42 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11177

Unless I’m told otherwise, I’m only going to do this once. But for the record, Yahoo is going with the following spelling for its new slogan: “It Starts With Y!ou.” I don’t think that’s going to fly with consumers or copy editors, but we’ll see.

Also undetermined: Whether there will be any news unveiled at Yahoo’s press conference to roll out said slogan. But I’ll be here for you just in case. And in the meantime, you can find glimpses of the coming campaign at the bottom of this post.

The event begins: Boilerplate intro remarks from Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Carol Bartz, followed by CMO Elisa Steele. Steele shows off a Venn diagram that shows the intersection of “my world” and “the world.” Yahoo, apparently, is that intersection. “That’s where the yodel is.”

Steele reminds us that this is Yahoo’s first global marketing campaign. That’s old hat for Microsoft (MSFT) and something Google (GOOG) has never done. Ad campaigns will roll out in 10 countries, branding campaign will be in all territories.

Steele runs through some imagery that will be used in campaign. Yahoo users, apparently, comprise many races and creeds. But all of them are buff and/or skinny. Unless they’re pregnant. A video ad, meanwhile features an upgraded yodel.

OK. Time for Q&A:

Onstage: Bartz; Steele; EVP Hilary Schneider; Tapan Bhat, SVP Integrated Consumer Experiences; Penny Baldwin, SVP Global Integrated Marketing and Brand Management.

What’s the budget for the campaign?

Steele: “Over $100 million.”

Status of ad market? Also, what won’t you sell?

Schneider: Starting to see a stabilization. “Wouldn’t go so far as to say as we’re seeing a full recovery.”

Bartz: We’re still “bumping along the bottom.” Regarding sales, she dodges/reframes the question, talking about “focus” instead. “We’re just revisiting everything.” Is there anything you won’t sell? “Of course.” But no specifics. Will improve photo, video, “much, much better email.”

Please talk about the launch of Google Ad Exchange and its threat to you.

Schneider: “The reality is that the display marketplace is fragmented.” Our exchange (Right Media) is biggest, but it’s intuitive that there will be other exchanges. “We welcome Google.”

Why do a relaunch at all? Are consumers actually unhappy, or is it just advertisers and press and investors carping?

Bartz: “Advertisers follow consumers” and we need to “build circulation.” By doing this approach, “we get really good micro-insights for our advertisers.” She doesn’t explain how this will happen, though.

Steele: “Consumers want more from online advertising.” They’re asking for it.

What about video plans?

Bartz: “Video snacks” are crucial to consumers and advertisers. “A big emphasis” inside Yahoo. A “big cornerstone of our strategy.”

How long will campaign run? How will you measure success?

Steele: It’s funded for 15 months, and I expect it will run longer than that. Vague answers about management.

Some chat about search, which formally debuts today.

Will there be product-specific ads?

Steele: Launch of the campaign in each market will start with brand, and over time you’ll see more product ads, as “people get familiar with Yahoo again.”

One more time: Is Zimbra being shopped?

Bartz: No comment. But “what I will tell you is that Zimbra technology is very, very important to our mail system, and that’s one of the prime reasons that Yahoo bought Zimbra when it did…[but] the technology is already integrated into our system.”

How is this campaign different than other campaigns? You’ve had a lot of campaigns in the last 15 years.

Steele: I haven’t been here in past, but I’ve reviewed every campaign that has been done and this is radically different because it’s more than a campaign. Carol and Carol’s staff are all behind the concept of “you.” Everyone’s on board. “If this was just a marketing campaign or a slogan, then we’ve really failed.”

Bartz: This should remind you of the past, actually. That’s not a bad thing. On search: Search has evolved from the “10 blue links” days. She views background of search much like an Intel (INTC) chip, which everyone uses. But Dell’s (DELL) experience with that chip is different than HP’s (HPQ) experience, etc. Yahoo is stable at 19 percent of search business because users are on Yahoo and they like Yahoo search. “Yahoo search is great. It’s not Bing, it’s Yahoo search….What’s most important is that we drive upstream and provide a great experience, even though the plumbing is down here.”

Do users really like to customize their search (premise behind overhauled homepage)?

Bhat: Core group of 15 percent of users really into customization. Most other people say they want that but aren’t willing to do the work. So we’re doing incremental customization on the homepage. “This will be something that keeps growing over time.”

Will you be integrating text-messaging and other short messaging services into the homepage?

Bhat: Yes.

How is the antitrust scrutiny going (with regard to Microsoft search deal)?

Bartz: Just as we predicted. We stand by our original prediction that the deal will close early 2010.

Are we too obsessed about what’s new here?

Bartz: Yes. “People just decided to put a cloud over Yahoo’s head”…and decided that if we’re going to remove the cloud we had to show off something shiny and new. “If you get out of New York and Silicon Valley, everybody loves Yahoo.” I travel a lot and everyone loves it. “I just want to transport you guys out of this cynicism you’re in….Why are you so cynical? Why not be cynical about fricking Google? See…you got me…you got me pissed off.”

[Note. Some debate about whether Bartz used "fricking" instead of an actual curse. We'll go to tape later. Update: Apologies (and thanks to Business Insider's Nicholas Carlson, who shared his video with me). Bartz appears to have said "fricking" or "frigging" Google.]

[Sorry about interregnum there. Cursing got me wound up. Back to real-time.]

Where do you want to be in two years?

Bartz: Yahoo is the only site where you when you wake up in the morning and you want to know what’s going on everywhere about everything, you can find it one place. The company is unified around that spirit, “not about technology for technology’s sake, but about what that delivers.”

Why doesn’t Wall Street buy the Yahoo turnaround story even though Google has fared okay during this recession? 

Bartz: “Yahoo and Google are different companies. They are in different businesses…investors are somewhat like you guys, where they’re saying ‘let’s wait and see.’” About this direct comparison with Google: “We aren’t a comparable company. They aren’t us and we aren’t them.”

So whom would you like to be compared to?

Bartz: “Yahoo.” But the closest analog is AOL, actually. Google is a white page with a search box. We’re very personal. When you go to our page in India, it feels like India. Relevance is important. Personalization is important. That’s not Facebook’s strategy. That’s not Twitter. “Not to say we’re not part of the greater tech sector, and you’ve got to find some compares.” But Yahoo is unique. We’re doing okay with the world side; we have to work on the easy personalization that is the core of our product focus.

Please address the stock sale, Carol.

Bartz: “I didn’t sell anything.” I got restricted stock throughout the year; when it vests, it gets recorded as a sale. “I haven’t sold one penny of Yahoo stock. Thanks for asking, because it pissed me off when they said I sold. I wouldn’t do that.”

Q&A ends. More in a bit.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090922/live-from-new-york-yahoo-introduces-you/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090622/like-snowflakes-no-two-mytouch-3gs-alike/ http://allthingsd.com/20090622/like-snowflakes-no-two-mytouch-3gs-alike/#comments Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:00:24 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=19951 In a summer of handset debuts that already include the Palm (PALM) Pre, Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone 3GS, and soon, Research in Motion’s (RIM) BlackBerry Tour 9630, add one more: the myTouch 3G, T-Mobile’s second Google (GOOG) Android phone. The carrier officially introduced the device today and said customers can begin reserving it on July 8. Price: $199 with a two-year contract.

Sleeker than the somewhat boxy G1, the myTouch boasts longer battery life–up to six hours of talk time, one more than its predecessor–a 3.2-megapixel camera, a virtual keyboard that orients automatically from portrait to landscape mode and, more importantly, better customization.

Now that the Android Market has 5,000-strong range of applications, devices like the myTouch offer a more compelling proposition than even before. “No two myTouch devices will be alike,” Andrew Sherrard, vice president at T-Mobile, told News.com. “They will be as unique as the users that own them. What we have found is that once consumers know how to customize a device and they add everything they want on it, they respond very well to having a phone that is specially designed for them.”

Yep, they sure do.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090622/like-snowflakes-no-two-mytouch-3gs-alike/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090511/freshdirect-on-nyc%e2%80%99s-horrendous-grocery-scene/ http://allthingsd.com/20090511/freshdirect-on-nyc%e2%80%99s-horrendous-grocery-scene/#comments Mon, 11 May 2009 18:30:07 +0000 Andrew LaVallee http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=11653 FreshDirect’s Rick Braddock writes today that “too much attention has been given to digital advertising,” and that he and other executives at the online grocery store have instead focused on customer relationships and making sales.

He got even more customer feedback on Friday, when he delivered similar remarks at a marketing conference in New York.

After discussing some of FreshDirect’s new interactive features, including “You Might Also Like,” which suggests additional items based on what you’ve added to your shopping cart, a woman in the audience said she was “a little annoyed by it.” She asked Mr. Braddock if the site’s customization plans included a way for customers to block it.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090511/freshdirect-on-nyc%e2%80%99s-horrendous-grocery-scene/feed/ 0